-=JPG JULY DISCUSSION THREAD=-

[Pete]

Hi guys.

This is the discussion group for the guys who have taken the plunge and joined the JPG JULY initiative (where habitual RAW shooters have decided to shoot JPG for a month).

This thread is for discussion of your findings/questions as you run through the month.

What are you finding, what are you missing, how are you adjusting to working a slightly different way.

Discuss.

[Woolburr]

The link from the picture thread is repaired.

[Pete]

I'm suffering psycological problems from swapping to jpg. It looks as though my shots aren't as sharp as the raw files were looking in lightroom.

It's an insane thought, so I'm ignoring it and blaming the idiot using the camera.

[Woolburr]

RAW withdrawal....don't worry...we will walk you through it.

[webcrawlur]

ROFLMAO, all the discussion is over there in the post your pic's part of the thread, come on guys, fix it.:confused::rolleyes::p

[Swift]

Why would anyone want to switch to JPG...Doing that would be like sitting in a torture chamber.

[Analog6]

Why would anyone want to switch to JPG...Doing that would be like sitting in a torture chamber.

My sentiments precisely - only get about 6-8% of th4e functionality possible with my camera - you MUST be joking. In my humble opinion, a total waste of time.

[John_B]

I find shooting jpegs keep the photographer (me) more keen on the situation, like slide film did in the film days. Paying more attention to proper white balance, color settings in camera to match the look you want to achieve. Proper exposure which becomes easier when doing correct metering.......

Getting the camera to produce what you want is possible and its how I try ;)

[JWright]

I find shooting jpegs keep the photographer (me) more keen on the situation, like slide film did in the film days. Paying more attention to proper white balance, color settings in camera to match the look you want to achieve. Proper exposure which becomes easier when doing correct metering.......

Getting the camera to produce what you want is possible and its how I try ;)

BING! BING! BING! We have a winner...

This is exactly the whole purpose of the exercise. I'm going to give it a try, but I'm going to shoot in RAW+JPEG so I have both available. Besides, I just got the 40D after shooting with a 20D for the last four years, so I'm interested to see what Picture Styles do to the JPEGs.

[Permagrin]

I find shooting jpegs keep the photographer (me) more keen on the situation, like slide film did in the film days. Paying more attention to proper white balance, color settings in camera to match the look you want to achieve. Proper exposure which becomes easier when doing correct metering.......

Getting the camera to produce what you want is possible and its how I try ;)

I think that that is a good practice for any photographer, whether you shoot in raw or jpeg.

For me, I try to achieve that, but won't limit my possibilities of repair (or just plain fun) in post processing by shooting solely jpeg.

[sadatk]

You guys are crazy. lol.

[John_B]

BING! BING! BING! We have a winner....JWright,
Nice and according to puddlepirate44
If you do, Woolburr will buy you a year's worth of gas for your car. Honest. <-- click to see (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=5844292&postcount=51) With high gas prices it adds up to a nice win :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Damo77]

Why would anyone want to switch to JPG...Doing that would be like sitting in a torture chamber.

My sentiments precisely - only get about 6-8% of th4e functionality possible with my camera - you MUST be joking. In my humble opinion, a total waste of time.

Sounds like you're scared. Aren't you confident enough of your photography skills to abandon the post-processing power of Raw even for one challenge?

I made myself extremely unpopular recently by expressing these views, but they haven't changed one bit. I'm not dissing Raw - it is a wonderfully powerful format, and offers all sorts of advantages, especially for professional use.

But in circumstances where lighting is good, I can't think of many reasons why a competent photographer shouldn't be able to get a perfectly good shot in jpeg.

[Dan-o]

I only give up things that are harmful to me or have some sort of down side. I haven't found a down side to RAW yet.

[Anke]

Are you finding that you are chimping more shooting JPG?

[Zazoh]

I only give up things that are harmful to me or have some sort of down side. I haven't found a down side to RAW yet.

While there is no down side to not ironing ones underwear and socks, do you do it? Why not? I don't, cuz it doesn't matter

I shot RAW for 18 months, never needed to 'save' WB, or an image that was a few stops over or under. About a month into JPG only and not regretting it.

When people come in my office or home they comment on the prints composition or lighting, NEVER ..... NEVER has someone said WOW is that JPG or RAW, no one would be able to tell anyway.

To each his own, I'm not trying to say it is for everyone, but I love the extra card space 700+ on a 4G, faster transfer and processing times too. Not to mention a non prepritary archive method that is editable in nearly every program ever made for images and will be much longer in the future.

I'm a rare breed, I know, I'd rather shoot pictures than sit in front of a computer processing for hours. Not to mention letting a $2000 camera $3000 if you count a mounted lens, process the images for me based, in 9 shots per second, with the conditions at the time of the shot rather than a $99 piece of software and me spending minutes per image.

[Anke]

While there is no down side to not ironing ones underwear and socks, do you do it? Why not? I don't, cuz it doesn't matter

I shot RAW for 18 months, never needed to 'save' WB, or an image that was a few stops over or under. About a month into JPG only and not regretting it.

When people come in my office or home they comment on the prints composition or lighting, NEVER ..... NEVER has someone said WOW is that JPG or RAW, no one would be able to tell anyway.

To each his own, I'm not trying to say it is for everyone, but I love the extra card space 700+ on a 4G, faster transfer and processing times too. Not to mention a non prepritary archive method that is editable in nearly every program ever made for images and will be much longer in the future.

I'm a rare breed, I know, I'd rather shoot pictures than sit in front of a computer processing for hours. Not to mention letting a $2000 camera $3000 if you count a mounted lens, process the images for me based, in 9 shots per second, with the conditions at the time of the shot rather than a $99 piece of software and me spending minutes per image.

I like the cut of your jib.

[cdifoto]

JPEG has its place, but not on my cameras. :D

I'd be futzing with my JPEGs in Lightroom (I do with my P&S) anyway, so it may as well be a RAW with more latitude. My workflow wouldn't change and I have plenty of memory cards.

[Damo77]

I like the cut of your jib.

Me too.

[Dan-o]

While there is no down side to not ironing ones underwear and socks, do you do it? Why not? I don't, cuz it doesn't matter


I don't do it because my time is valuable and it is unnecessary. What kind of comparison is that?

Even if I do shoot JPEG on occasion the PP is the same. Import to Lightroom, batch adjust, export to CS3 sharpen droplet, done.

[Woolburr]

I find shooting jpegs keep the photographer (me) more keen on the situation, like slide film did in the film days. Paying more attention to proper white balance, color settings in camera to match the look you want to achieve. Proper exposure which becomes easier when doing correct metering.......

Getting the camera to produce what you want is possible and its how I try ;)

You have a good grasp of what this is all about. It does sharpen your skills. The problem here is too many people on the forum take themselves far too seriously. After hearing some of the foolish comments you would think that 99% of the people here shoot nothing but fine art photography 24/7 that is so critical that they absolutely, positively must shoot only RAW.....hehehe :lol::lol:

Lighten up folks....this is a fun exercise...try something new...it won't hurt you, it won't kill you....and you sure as heck aren't going to lose a masterpiece because you attempted a few shots in JPEG. Nobody is asking you to shoot paid work in JPEG...this is strictly for fun.:D

[Permagrin]

hey wait....you mean it's not fine art? hmmmmm :lol:

[Zazoh]

I don't do it because my time is valuable and it is unnecessary. What kind of comparison is that?

Exactly, just like RAW, which does take more time. More importantly, because it is unnecessary, NO one will see it but you, am I wrong?

So, it goes like this, one can shoot in RAW (iron Underwear) or one can just shoot JPG (put them on), the only one that will know you shot in RAW (Iron underwear) will be you. If you print or post to the web (JPG) no one will see RAW.

I thought a good comparison.

[cdifoto]

Exactly, just like RAW, which does take more time. More importantly, because it is unnecessary, NO one will see it but you, am I wrong?
RAW only takes more time if

A) Your workflow is crap and/or
B) You think SOOC JPEGs are great therefore you do not do anything to them.

[sidx001]

Are you finding that you are chimping more shooting JPG?

Yes, I actually do chimp a whole lot more shooting jpeg. It's almost like I'm trying to analyze just how much I'm going to have to work to get the picture like I want it later!

For me, I'm really enjoying this challenge, it does make me think a lot more about what I'm seeing in the lens, I have found that I'm taking more time on my shots, for right now at least! Btw, I'm shooting only in jpeg, not in RAW and jpeg. I'm living on the edge here!! :D

[Dan-o]

Exactly, just like RAW

I thought it was pretty clear. My workflow is the same RAW or JPEG. So where is the extra time spent? Must be that "NEW" math. I must be missing something.

[Dan-o]

RAW only takes more time if

A) Your workflow is crap and/or
B) You think SOOC JPEGs are great therefore you do not do anything to them.

Exactly.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to shoot RAW, shoot BMP for all I care. I'm not even one of those who will taught the benefits of increased control of WB and exposure because 95% of the time it really doesn't matter. To say RAW takes extra time just is a false statement. Like I wrote before. Insert card into card reader> delete obvious bad shots> adjust first image for color, white balance and exposure> batch convert the rest> export to CS3 sharpen droplet and save.

What part of that work flow would have been quicker with JPEG?

[Pete]

Ok.. Here's a puzzler.

I've been shooting in jpg and wondering why my shots look softer than usual, so I did a compare in LR.

http://the-aperture.com/raw-jpg.jpg

Now, the shot on the left is the RAW file, the one on the right is the jpg (shot in neutral picture style with everything set to 0)

So, how can this be? I'd expect the raw file to contain about the equal amount of sharpness as the jpg file.

[John_B]

Pete,
Because your Adobe software sharpens the photo (or so I have heard). Try the same test with DPP and you wont see the difference, as DPP will apply the camera settings to both photos unless you tell it otherwise.

[Pete]

Pete,
Because your Adobe software sharpens the photo (or so I have heard). Try the same test with DPP and you wont see the difference, as DPP will apply the camera settings to both photos unless you tell it otherwise.

I've got sharpening in LR set to 0.

So why does it sharpen my CR2 files and not the JPG files?

[John_B]

I've got sharpening in LR set to 0.
So why does it sharpen my CR2 files and not the JPG files?Pete,
Sounds like a good question for Adobe :lol:

[Zazoh]

Exactly.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to shoot RAW, shoot BMP for all I care. I'm not even one of those who will taught the benefits of increased control of WB and exposure because 95% of the time it really doesn't matter. To say RAW takes extra time just is a false statement. Like I wrote before. Insert card into card reader> delete obvious bad shots> adjust first image for color, white balance and exposure> batch convert the rest> export to CS3 sharpen droplet and save.

What part of that work flow would have been quicker with JPEG?

1. Most shots don't need adjust for color or WB or Esp, mostly just crop
2. Batch convert, What is that? If I want to send to printer (Vendor) I don't need to batch convert from RAW to JPG. And, remember I shot RAW for a long time so I know converting 100 RAW images to JPG takes time. I don't know why the camera can do it at 9 frames a second but the computer takes so long, but it does.
3. Sharpen? shoot 90% people, JPGs razor sharp, so much so, I might need to soften. Those with more years don't like sharp faces.

Unless your workflow is entirely in RAW even to post to web, I doubt it, or send to printer it takes longer, not much on the individual level, but when we are talking 100's or thousands of pictures you are wrong.

There are those in these forums that are more graphic artists than photographers, not even sure what interest they found in this thread, I fancy myself as the later, photographer.

I'm not sure why cameras don't come locked in RAW since everyone that shots in other settings "is plain ignorant". ;-) or wait we have a choice.

These arguments are like
Pepsi is better than Coke
My god is better than your god
pro life vs pro death (choice)
etc.

They are still fun though. :cool:

[Permagrin]

I've got sharpening in LR set to 0.

So why does it sharpen my CR2 files and not the JPG files?

it's true...it adjust black as well on CR2's (and sharpening automatically) but if you import a jpeg, it automatically does nothing...

and how did you get Adobe to automatically not sharpen raw files? I haven't been able to figure out how to turn that off...

[Dan-o]

Well Zazoh I guess it isn't even a question of RAW and JPEG. The fact is I'm a perfectionist I guess. Very rarely is a shot perfect to the fact that a little color or contrast added won't make it better. Like I said even when I shoot JPEG my workflow doesn't change. I don't know why your computer takes so long but in Lightroom I click SYNC and in 5 seconds all the pictures are converted.

[Anke]

...and how did you get Adobe to automatically not sharpen raw files? I haven't been able to figure out how to turn that off...

You mean LR? I have set up a develop preset that applies 0 sharpening and then I apply that to all images upon import.

[Zazoh]

I don't know why your computer takes so long but in Lightroom I click SYNC and in 5 seconds all the pictures are converted.

Define all? You mean to tell me you can batch output RAW to JPG (Export I think LR calls it)100 pictures in 5 seconds?

In reading the forums you are VERY lucky then. Most Lightroom users main complaint is speed of application. I have it and rarely use it because it is slow, I have a gig of RAM and fast computer and it still drags.

Hey if it works for you fine. I just find it faster, easier, and at the end of the day no one knows the difference. (Viewing the output)

I may have said this, I was a RAW user, but just found no need to be.

[In2Photos]

Are you finding that you are chimping more shooting JPG?
Yes. But I also was double and triple checking the meter before taking a shot. Out of a hundred shots from today I only see 2 or 3 where my exposure was way off and that was due to complete user error. I was also using Manual mode and didn't change settings between shots in and out of the sun.:o

[Permagrin]

Define all? You mean to tell me you can batch output RAW to JPG (Export I think LR calls it)100 pictures in 5 seconds?


It doesn't take very long at all to sync 100 photos. The export takes a little longer but it's quite fast really. Maybe it's different on different OS...

[cdifoto]

Exporting 950 shots takes awhile, I'll admit. But by the time I got that many finished in LR I need a break before I hit 'em in PS anyway. Gives me a chance to coffee up and go outside for some fresh air.

[Zazoh]

It doesn't take very long at all to sync 100 photos. The export takes a little longer but it's quite fast really. Maybe it's different on different OS...

No, I read the internet forums, I think you are very lucky.

What is sync, are you just applying the same recipie to all the files, WB, EXP, Color etc? I've never shot a situation where I could do that, are you shooting in a studio or something?

[cdifoto]

What is sync, are you just applying the same recipie to all the files, WB, EXP, Color etc? I've never shot a situation where I could do that, are you shooting in a studio or something?
I dunno about him but I can do that quite a bit. I'll often have a series of shots under the same conditions that I can sync up. Preparations all the same, ceremony all the same, reception all the same.

[Zazoh]

I dunno about him but I can do that quite a bit. I'll often have a series of shots under the same conditions that I can sync up. Preparations all the same, ceremony all the same, reception all the same.

So the question becomes, could this have been handled by a camera setting? If not, then perhaps you are applying stylistic mood to your photo's, which is fine too, can be done in JPG too, ya and I understand bit depth and all that, but I also know it doesn't matter.

And, did you folks that shoot RAW, because you think you have to, come to this thread to learn more about JPG or to convince yourselves that what your doing is superior?

The fact of the matter RAW does take longer, to shoot, to transfer to a card, to load the images from the card to load the images in software to store to batch convert etc, it takes longer at every stage of the the process. (ALL Facts) In no case does working with a RAW file become a faster process than working with JPG.

But that doesn't even matter, what matters is that if you are a photographer and can work in various lighting conditions and capture moods and subjects that are engaging when you print or display on the web no one will know.

Show me an image that can't be corrected in JPG and I'll show you an image that goes straight to the recyle bin.

I guess I should note that in the film days I shot slide as well. Maybe it boils down to me being a photographer and you folks being graphic artists. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how we get there we just get there. I guess both methods work.

I like to shoot, and you folks like to process. You folks also keep forgetting one thing, I decided to go back to JPG on my own, because it worked for me. I'm not saying it will work for everyone, face it everyone is not that good ....:lol: (Kidding)

[cdifoto]

I'm no less a photographer because I shoot RAW than you are because you shoot JPEG. I hate to process and that's why I shoot RAW. Plus Lightroom automatically kills the dead pixels on my sensor with RAW but does nothing to the JPEGs. And it's harder to remove those dead pixels from a JPEG. Just killing off the hot/stuck/dead pixels is reason enough to shoot RAW, in my opinion. ;) :D

BTW I'm not dismissing JPEG altogether. If you're on a tight deadline, need all the speed you can get out of your camera and/or space you can get out of your cards, JPEG can be useful. In my opinion, those are the ONLY times JPEG makes sense. If you're not pressed for time and/or have plenty of storage, why would you NOT shoot RAW?

As for workflow, RAW only takes longer if you do nothing to your JPEGs.

[Zazoh]

I'm no less a photographer because I shoot RAW than you are because you shoot JPEG.

I agree.


BTW I'm not dismissing JPEG altogether. If you're on a tight deadline, need all the speed you can get out of your camera and/or space you can get out of your cards, JPEG can be useful. In my opinion, those are the ONLY times JPEG makes sense. If you're not pressed for time and/or have plenty of storage, why would you NOT shoot RAW?

For all the reasons I've mentioned earlier. My position is not unique, to these forums it is, because people belive nearly everything they read here.

http://www.shawnstarr.com/, read his FAQ, specifically the two questions about RAW


As for workflow, RAW only takes longer if you do nothing to your JPEGs.

Only if you don't do the last step of a conversion and print straight from RAW, and don't post to the web. And, JPGS at 1/4 the size load 3 times faster.

I'm not here to change your mind, obviously you have a system that works for you, quite well based on your site. I do, however, feel there is a great deal of hype around RAW that isn't well deserved. In fact, most folks could benifit from learning more about their cameras and technique than learning about RAW.

[In2Photos]

Let's not turn this into a RAW vs JPEG discussion please. That has been done many times before. This thread is to discuss our findings from shooting JPEGs during JPEG July.

[Pete]

As for workflow, RAW only takes longer if you do nothing to your JPEGs.

This is basically what prompted the idea of the JPG July experiment.

Woolbur and I were discussing the fact that we both shoot in RAW, but do very little in the way of post processing to many of our shots. That prompted us to give JPG a try.

[HankScorpio]

I tried jpeg today. It felt wrong crippling my 14 bit camera to 8 bit. My keeper rate was way down and I'm a very careful shooter, I don't have my 40D set to machine gun mode. I had to PP the jpegs much more than I do RAW, mostly trying to get rid of compression artefacts. I used my ExpoCap that I got free with something for the first time and wow, setting custom white balance is such a pain compared to not caring as RAW isn't affected by it.

Result for me is that I'll be sticking with RAW.

[JWright]

I just posted my first offering over in the picture thread with a comparison to the original RAW. There is a very noticeable difference between the RAW and the JPEG, especially since I bumped up the parameters in the Picture Style on the JPEG.

I'm curious... For the purposes of this exercise, just how much post processing is allowed on the JPEG? Can we do any adjustments (other than cropping and resizing) or do they have to be straight out of the camera?

[cdifoto]

This is basically what prompted the idea of the JPG July experiment.

Woolbur and I were discussing the fact that we both shoot in RAW, but do very little in the way of post processing to many of our shots. That prompted us to give JPG a try.
Ah see I don't do what I consider a lot, but I have various presets in LR that take care of the equivalent of a lot if they were actions in Photoshop. Saves me a lot of time because the preview of the Preset is instant, and they're applied at export. I still run some actions once I get into PS but they're a lot lighter and mostly in batch...the biggest one being the resize/watermark/save in various sizes.

Another reason I use Lightroom and therefore RAW on my dSLRs (besides the hot pixels) is that my Fuji F40 doesn't have adjustable settings for image parameters. I use Lightroom for those JPEGs to get the look I want right off as a default, and then do what I want, if anything, beyond that. Since I do that for the Fuji, I may as well do that for everything. If the Fuji had RAW I would be using it too. Basically Lightroom is my go-to program for everything, and I want the most I can get out of every camera.

[In2Photos]

I just posted my first offering over in the picture thread with a comparison to the original RAW. There is a very noticeable difference between the RAW and the JPEG, especially since I bumped up the parameters in the Picture Style on the JPEG.

I'm curious... For the purposes of this exercise, just how much post processing is allowed on the JPEG? Can we do any adjustments (other than cropping and resizing) or do they have to be straight out of the camera?
I don't think there is a set amount of processing allowed so to speak, but the idea is to try and minimize your PP. Use the parameters in the camera to do most of the work for you. But if you wanted to convert something to B&W that might take a little work and should be fine.

[Analog6]

Sounds like you're scared. Aren't you confident enough of your photography skills to abandon the post-processing power of Raw even for one challenge?

I made myself extremely unpopular recently by expressing these views, but they haven't changed one bit. I'm not dissing Raw - it is a wonderfully powerful format, and offers all sorts of advantages, especially for professional use.

But in circumstances where lighting is good, I can't think of many reasons why a competent photographer shouldn't be able to get a perfectly good shot in jpeg.

Yes, I can get a perfectly good shot in jpeg, I do it regularly with my Canon P&S, but why, why, why should I LIMIT myself to such a restricted format when I have the capability for so much more in my camera.

That's why I BOUGHT a DSLR in the first place! I could have just kept on with P&S cameras, and been much better off financially.

[In2Photos]

Yes, I can get a perfectly good shot in jpeg, I do it regularly with my Canon P&S, but why, why, why should I LIMIT myself to such a restricted format when I have the capability for so much more in my camera.

That's why I BOUGHT a DSLR in the first place! I could have just kept on with P&S cameras, and been much better off financially.
There is still a difference between a P&S and a DSLR besides the available formats of recording the data. I bought my DSLR because my P&S couldn't keep up with my then 9 month old daughter. The reason to limit yourself to JPEG in this exercise is to take a step back and try to do as much as possible BEFORE taking the shot. Get back to the roots of photography and stay out of the hustle and bustle of PP life. Shooting RAW is not wrong, nor is shooting JPEG. But I tell you what, I have had a lot of fun for the past few days enjoying this exercise.

[hotrod1935]

Can anyone help me how to upload a photo here or put a link where it's explained? Got a few good jpegs to show.

[John_B]

hotrod1935,
Here is a link that explains how to upload a photo to the forum Tutorial: How to attach photos to a post <-- click to see (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160897)

However this is where they are showing the photos JPEG July <-- click to see (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=530472)

[hotrod1935]

Thank´s John_B

[Bill Boehme]

Uh, where do I find the settings on my computer to be able to take jpg images? :lol:

Ok.. Here's a puzzler.

I've been shooting in jpg and wondering why my shots look softer than usual, so I did a compare in LR.

Now, the shot on the left is the RAW file, the one on the right is the jpg (shot in neutral picture style with everything set to 0)

So, how can this be? I'd expect the raw file to contain about the equal amount of sharpness as the jpg file.

Other things can have an effect on the perceived sharpness of an image such as contrast, clarity, and tone curves. Also, Photoshop may operate differently than DPP when demosaicing the RAW file which could account for some of the difference.

..... and that's why I shoot RAW. Plus Lightroom automatically kills the dead pixels on my sensor with RAW

So, if they are dead ... why do they need to be killed? Is this an un-dead thing? :lol: